Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Online Film Critics' Poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Despite the substantial SPA activity on the Keep side of this AfD, there is still no strong consensus one way or another. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 18:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Online Film Critics' Poll[edit]

International Online Film Critics' Poll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The article seems to be sourced mainly through blog type websites, and most tellingly, is hosted on Google Sites (https://sites.google.com/site/internationalonlinefilmcritics) which gives the impression of an WP:SPS. The site does not provide any criteria for how the critics are selected, so it's impossible to establish how qualified these "online critics" are. No significant coverage in the mainstream press or a prominent industry journal (Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Sight & Sound etc), nor any book coverage. I get the feeling Wikipedia is being used to promote a hobby site. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recommend for editors to review each reference one by one. I found the most credible to be this by Yes! Weekly and this by HitFix but am not completely sure about their reliability. However, the article appears to reference unreliable sources or sources that barely cover this award (especially in a database manner): 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, which are bloggish or even obvious blogs. I'm leaning toward a weak keep based on the first two sources I mentioned (changed !vote, see below), but I think this topic is more borderline in notability than the article's citation tags may indicate. Would like to hear others' thoughts. Please note that we do have a number of award articles that probably should be scrutinized as well, so "Other stuff exists" is not a meaningful argument here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you Erik, but do you think that Filmweb, Dziennik Polska-Europa-Świat, Film e dvd, Eclipse Magazine aren't reliable sources? Robert Hardy (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example Eclipse Magazine is an italian newspaper, registered at the Rome Court (No. 260/2009 of 21 July) Robert Hardy (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see about Eclipse Magazine. Its website just did not convey any sense of credibility. The same goes for Film e DVD (which is what I meant by bloggish). Something like Yes! Weekly identifying the founder is useful, but a source like this does not quite seem like "significant coverage" to me. I guess I am looking more for sources that cover the award as its own topic, not just to repeat the announced winners and nominees. This seems to be more of a pseudo-list topic where press releases are re-posted. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To say in another way what I mean, if you Google the award and George McCoy (the founder), you get nine results, only one of which is a reliable source. I don't know if that is the best criterion to use, but it seems to indicate in one way that the background of the award has not received "significant coverage". Erik (talk | contribs) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but I found more than 100 reults. And for Eclipse Magazine: I absolutely know that it is a registered newspaper with a real editorial staff. Robert Hardy (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it is reliable, but it has the same kind of coverage as Filmweb does, hence my mild iffiness. Do you mean to say you found more than 100 results of the award and George McCoy? If so, what are you searching for? (I'm using Google and search for "International Online Film Critics" "George McCoy".) Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The criteria is significant coverage; I'm sure you will get the odd hit for any award, it's not unusual for a star's publicist to slip in non-notable awards in interviews and press releases etc, especially when they are campaigning for major awards. If you take the New York Film Critics Circle for example, you get hits from the BBC, The Hollywood Reporter and the LA Times, and those are just the first few. Any heavy-hitter like that would be fine. I would even settle for an "awards summary" like you what you get at The New York Times: many critics associations and circles are namechecked here, but the International Online Film Critics' Poll isn't one of them (not to be confused with the similarly named Online Film Critics Society). As for Filmweb, it is a polish variant of IMDb, and if it operates on user-submitted info then as with IMDB it won't be considered RS either, but I don't know the specifics of the site; it could explain why many of these sources are Polish though, if they are reproducing content from it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Filmweb isn't a polish variant of IMDb. Robert Hardy (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of those sources discuss the award itself - its history, its significance to the field. They are simply reprints of the list of winners. I am not seeing anything in those sources that would help me determine whether or not the 'International Online Film Critics' Poll' is a significant award. It may be snobbish to say, 'real awards don't operate from Google Sites.' But... they don't, in general. Combine that with the fact that this poll seems to be entirely ignored by all of the major entertainment magazines, newspapers, and web sites- they don't even reprint its list of winners- and I am not seeing what I would expect to see in relation to a notable award. I have no way of knowing, looking at those sources, whether this is anything more than the hobby of some guy with a free web site. Not, I emphasize, that there's anything wrong with that, but that doesn't mean we need an article about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I talked to the gentleman editing the page about its current flaws. I am in favor of giving him say... 7 to 10 days to correct the page before continuing the delete process. I hope that he will use this time if given to make this page a worthy addition to the wikipedia family Andrew Wiggin (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you only registered three days ago, I advise that you should read WP:GNG. We are not judging the validity of the article, we are judging the validity of the topic. The editor is not compelled to undertake any further work on the article: a non-notable article should be deleted regardless of how well developed the article is, and a notable article should be retained regardless of its state. Notability is solely assessed by coverage in WP:Reliable Sources, not by the state of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow betty. Way to kick me in the face for being a "wiki 3 year old"! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a not-online independent and reliable source. It is an italian periodical: Ciak. In a page there is an interview to George McCoy that tells about a lot of details of the award (including the history of the award). Can tell you some of them? Robert Hardy (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no listing or significant coverage of when/where/how these online critics are polled and I see very little identification of who these online film critics are...what makes their opinion notable? I'm online, can I vote on these awards? The SAG Awards are notable because the members of SAG-AFTRA vote on them, the Academy Awards are notable because the members of the Motion Picture Academy vote on them, the Golden Globes are notable because members of The Hollywood Foreign Press Association vote on them. I would not say that the HitFix coverage conveys notability, because it's only a short paragraph with a listing of the nominees/awards. I found three mentions of people who attested that they voted in this "poll"...Mark Burger from 'Yes Weekly', film blogger Greg Klymkiw and Jeffrey Anderson/Combustible Celluloid/Thoughts on film and life, but the anonymous film blogger at The Columnist Without a Column also posted an invite he received from the Poll, so I am still puzzled as to who the poll participants are. Also, I can find no mention of the 'International Online Film Critics' as an ongoing entity with outside activities independent of the Poll. Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is also an answer to Shearonink: I think that this award is notable because it is voted by film critics and journalists from Metroactive, Le Nouvel Observateur, Mymovies.it, Cinefilos.it, Las Vegas Weekly, Examiner.com, BBC, The Times, IndieWire and other periodicals and because these film critics come from United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Poland, France and Canada. And I think that there are also reliable sources about the award. Augusto Antonio (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very easily passes GNG, and "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." The way the organization functions does not have a bearing on its notability. The organizations and its results makes the news, and that's what counts. (For transparency, the author PMed me at IRC and asked me to have a look.)Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, upon closer inspection, FisherQueen makes a good point. Although 6 of the 12 refs are blocked from where I am, of those, only 2 discuss the organization, and not in much detail. Just a blurb before getting to the results. I'd like to see more refs before !voting keep. I'll see what I can come up with. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay, I dug. I'm starting to click to what everyone's talking about. As an organization, there's not enough to pass GNG. The poll itself is real enough, but that sort of stands apart from the organization as a product. Does this product get mentioned a lot in mainstream media? Nope, not enough I think. Google page one tells the tale. It's blogs and rinky-dink sites, and not many of them, and the homepage of this org is google plus to boot. This looks like a small-time org on the make trying to use Wikipedia as a leg-up. Am I reading this right? Sorry for the 3 walls of text. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't right. Sources speak about this poll (not only about winners and nominees). I remember you that it isn't a society but a biannual polling. If sources didn't speak about the poll in itself we would not know that it is voted by polish, british, americans, italians, spanishes, canadians and french critics. Robert Hardy (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:CLUB makes a good point about the relevance of internationality: "Be cautious of claims that small organizations are national or international in scale. The fact that an organization has branches in multiple countries does not necessarily mean that its activities are truly international." Erik (talk | contribs) 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a club or an organization. It is a poll. Like the Indiewire Film Critics' Poll, the Sight & Sound Poll and Village Voice Film Poll. Robert Hardy (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All, see below. WP:ORG defines it simply. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per not meeting the notability guidelines for organizations. Anna made me realize that this topic can be seen as an organization, and I had not considered the guidelines specific to organizations. WP:ORGDEPTH in particular was my earlier concern; even with reliable sources, the content amounts to routine announcements. In addition, upon reviewing Yes! Weekly, I just noticed that the writer said the following: "Founded in 2007, this marked the third edition of the IOFCP — and the first in which I was honored to participate" (italics mine). I think this disqualifies it as an independent source even as it provides a bit more history than the rest of the sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IT ISN'T AN ORGANIZATION OR A SOCIETY OR AN ASSOCIATION: IT IS A BIANNUAL POLLING JUST LIKE THE VILLAGE VOICE FILM POLL. NOTABILITY FOR COMPANIES ISN'T VALID. AM I WRONG? Robert Hardy (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use caps. It does not help make an argument. WP:ORG states, "Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose." I think it is appropriate to apply these guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. For Wiktionary:

  • a poll is an election or a survey of a particular group of people. Noun
  • an organization is a group of people or other legal entities with an explicit purpose and written rules. Noun

These are two different things. Best wishes, Robert Hardy (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is a well-written article with a lot of informations. Sources are reliable and independent and the aricle can keep on Wikipedia. The award (and the argument) is notable. Samuel petan (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (weak) Keep I think the article is a notable topic considering a couple of the references, but the article does need a lot of work and expanding about the history of the poll, who is in it, etc. Some of the references might need to be removed as non-reliable, but I feel it may be worth keeping. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which references support the topic? I think that Yes! Weekly has to be discounted because the person who wrote the article is one of those who participated in the poll. Therefore it is not an independent source. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Full disclosure, I'm the AfC volunteer who accepted this article. I accepted the article because I saw evidence of notability in the sources. True, most of the citations were linked back to the subject, but the Yes! Weekly mention caught my eye. I am aware of the discussion above, but the fact that this award got a mention in a magazine with national large regional (This is why you don't edit when tired. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 18:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)) circulation gives it some claim to fame. Granted, the article needs work, but it's not at the level for an automatic AfD.[reply]
    I would also like it noted that this nomination was BITEY. The tag was placed less than 20 minutes after I accepted the article. I was still working with the user on IRC at the time, and Betty drove him away from making additional contributions. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 18:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly urge you to observe WP:AGF. Robert brought the suggestion to the Film project where the creation of the article was discussed. I opposed it because I had concerns about notability, but Robert went ahead and created it anyway (which was his prerogative). I believe it didn't meet the notability standard so I nominated it for deletion (which is my prerogative). I think it's a bit much to accuse another editor of "driving an editor away" with an AfD nomination, when it was your action that rendered the ongoing discussion at the Film project redundant. Once the article was created, AfD became the correct place to debate its notability. As pointed out above, I don't believe "ongoing" work has any impact on notability: article state is not relevant here, the quality of the sources is the issue. If the shoe were on the other foot, I'd rather save my time than put in hours of work just for it to be deleted. I still believe it's not a notable award, but if the consensus is otherwise then so be it, Robert can continue working on the article with the assurance it will not be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Matthew, an article for this poll was discussed ahead of time here a few days before creation (including a comment from Betty), so I do not think the AfD process was that abrupt. There was also a discussion on my user talk page here at about the same time, and in which I stated some hesitation. This discussion led me to change my mind. As for Yes! Weekly, are you saying that you acknowledge that the source is not independent of the poll but should be counted anyway? I'm not sure if that reference was actually put in print. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was put in print! You can control here: [1] 79.17.186.108 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there we go. I still think the author not being independent of the subject is an issue, especially considering that it is the only otherwise reliable source to name the poll's founder. Would he have written about the poll if he was not participating in it? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the only reliable source! You are wrong... 79.17.186.108 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall which sources both name the founder and are reliable. What are they? I'm saying Yes! Weekly comes close if not for the lack of objectivity. I still think the lack of in-depth coverage, per the notability guidelines for organizations (broadly defined), is a key issue for having this article. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you are wrong (and a bit racist) because from your comment we can read that you think that only english sources are reliable. But it is wrong! Ciak, Filmweb and others periodicals are reliable sources! 79.17.186.108 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would discount HitFix per WP:ORGDEPTH because it lacks in-depth coverage. I was supportive of it before, but reviewing the notability guidelines for organizations, deeper coverage is warranted. I discount Filmweb for the same reason. It has to do with the amount of coverage concerning the nature of the poll. For example, Is there a better source than Film e DVD about the membership? It's not reliable, and I cannot find mention of membership in a reliable source. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my comment above. But the fact that you spooked him still stands, because I was talking to him at the time. He genuinely thought it was notable. The quick AfD was a bit of a blow. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 21:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is well written, and the sources used are authoritative and independent. In addition, I know Italy and I also know that the Italian sources used in the article are excellent. In fact they are widely used in wikipedia in Italian language. The voice needs improvements, but it is also very good as well. This poll, just like the Village Voice Film Poll, is a topic with a great notability for media. In addition, members numbered (from numerous international newspapers) are important and famous critics. Mr. Taddeo (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Mr. Taddeo's support was actively solicited by Robin: [2]. While I am not that concerned by the canvassing per se, I think Mr. Taddeo's support should be examined more carefully than that of the other editors that have contributed. In the interests of AGF, Perhaps he would care to highlight which sources he feels are reliable and independent, and why? Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Betty, yes you are right: my support was solicited by Robert. He asked me what I tought about the page: my opinion could be positive or negative. It was (and it is) positive. In the aricle there are a lot of reliable sources. You asked me what source I think are reliable, and I answer you: HitFix, Filmweb, Dziennik and Flickeringmyth. Why? Because these talk also about the award and not only about winners and nominees. Also Yes! Weekly is a great source because, also if the writer was a member of the poll, this doesn't mean that it isn't an independent source with a lot of informations. Italian sources (Ciak, Film e dvd and Eclipse Magazine) are all reliable because they are used a lot in the Italian Wikipedia as - independent - sources. I hope I was clear. Mr. Taddeo (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FisherQueen, Anna, and per WP:WEB and WP:ORG. For what it's worth, I think it's extremely unlikely, bordering on impossible, that a website hosted at Google Sites, GeoCities, Angelfire, etc would be notable. If nobody can even be bothered to pay the $10 a year or whatever for a domain name, how do you expect media organisations to take you seriously? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Online_Film_Critics%27_Poll&oldid=1137932674"